Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
 

Back then, nobody cared. The VW Bugs were getting about the same, but with
a gas tank that basically sat in your lap, "stale air" heat that came right
off the cylinders, no cam bearings and a carburetor that you could rebuild
and tune blind folded. I think that test run was done on an oval track,
too.

Earle

"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
news:44691485.7B93EFAE@cox.net...
> If you use a magnifying glass and your imagination you may see
> where the brochure read a test run of fourteen hundred miles got sixty
> one.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Earle Horton wrote:
> >
> > Practically every passenger car manufacturer is claiming at least forty
> > miles a gallon now, with at least one model, thanks to electronic fuel
> > injection. They could do better too, but they don't need to as yet.
> >
> > Earle

Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
 

Bill,

Don't these things basically run at full load all the time? This means that
they will have a much more limited range of operating parameters than any
street use car, and over this limited range more primitive carburetor
technology will be more appropriate. I don't imagine that they worry too
much about economy or emissions either. ;^)

Earle

"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
news:44693570.56FA39A1@cox.net...
> Wouldn't you think the Pro Stock race cars and their millions of
> dollars of sponsors would use something other than carburetors:
> http://www.rehermorrison.com/indexStart.htm If you want fifteen to one
> fuel gas ratio, you'd better send it threw a jet, and not some vibrating
> solenoid orifice.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Simon Juncal wrote:
> >
> > Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> > fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> > and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> > use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> > more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> > fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
> >
> > You don't get one without the other
> >
> > Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> > 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> > and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real
time.
> >
> > Carbs use a very primitive and extremely complicated failure prone set
> > of mechanical devices to derive ONE unchangeable (until you stop and
> > replace jets) fuel map that has to suit the vehicle under a huge set of
> > variables.
> >
> > I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
> > wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
> > can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
> > ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
> > corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.
> >
> > --
> > Simon
> > "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
 

Bill,

Don't these things basically run at full load all the time? This means that
they will have a much more limited range of operating parameters than any
street use car, and over this limited range more primitive carburetor
technology will be more appropriate. I don't imagine that they worry too
much about economy or emissions either. ;^)

Earle

"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
news:44693570.56FA39A1@cox.net...
> Wouldn't you think the Pro Stock race cars and their millions of
> dollars of sponsors would use something other than carburetors:
> http://www.rehermorrison.com/indexStart.htm If you want fifteen to one
> fuel gas ratio, you'd better send it threw a jet, and not some vibrating
> solenoid orifice.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Simon Juncal wrote:
> >
> > Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> > fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> > and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> > use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> > more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> > fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
> >
> > You don't get one without the other
> >
> > Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> > 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> > and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real
time.
> >
> > Carbs use a very primitive and extremely complicated failure prone set
> > of mechanical devices to derive ONE unchangeable (until you stop and
> > replace jets) fuel map that has to suit the vehicle under a huge set of
> > variables.
> >
> > I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
> > wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
> > can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
> > ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
> > corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.
> >
> > --
> > Simon
> > "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
 

Bill,

Don't these things basically run at full load all the time? This means that
they will have a much more limited range of operating parameters than any
street use car, and over this limited range more primitive carburetor
technology will be more appropriate. I don't imagine that they worry too
much about economy or emissions either. ;^)

Earle

"L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
news:44693570.56FA39A1@cox.net...
> Wouldn't you think the Pro Stock race cars and their millions of
> dollars of sponsors would use something other than carburetors:
> http://www.rehermorrison.com/indexStart.htm If you want fifteen to one
> fuel gas ratio, you'd better send it threw a jet, and not some vibrating
> solenoid orifice.
> God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Simon Juncal wrote:
> >
> > Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> > fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> > and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> > use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> > more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> > fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
> >
> > You don't get one without the other
> >
> > Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> > 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> > and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real
time.
> >
> > Carbs use a very primitive and extremely complicated failure prone set
> > of mechanical devices to derive ONE unchangeable (until you stop and
> > replace jets) fuel map that has to suit the vehicle under a huge set of
> > variables.
> >
> > I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
> > wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
> > can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
> > ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
> > corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.
> >
> > --
> > Simon
> > "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
 

Hi Earle,
Yes, there is no choke on a Dominator:
http://www.carbsonly.com/Graphics/Bi...inatorrace.htm so
that would make to owner smart enough to feather it, like I'm sure you
have done, being too lazy to pull the choke. But other than that it got
the same idle screws, power valve bodies my 850 CFM double pumpers have:
http://www.----------.com/holley2.jpg Level site screw:
http://www.----------.com/holleySite.jpg You may notice I don't like to
f**k with the choke either! If it's cold, tickle it.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Earle Horton wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Don't these things basically run at full load all the time? This means that
> they will have a much more limited range of operating parameters than any
> street use car, and over this limited range more primitive carburetor
> technology will be more appropriate. I don't imagine that they worry too
> much about economy or emissions either. ;^)
>
> Earle
>
> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:44693570.56FA39A1@cox.net...
> > Wouldn't you think the Pro Stock race cars and their millions of
> > dollars of sponsors would use something other than carburetors:
> > http://www.rehermorrison.com/indexStart.htm If you want fifteen to one
> > fuel gas ratio, you'd better send it threw a jet, and not some vibrating
> > solenoid orifice.
> > God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Simon Juncal wrote:
> > >
> > > Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> > > fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> > > and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> > > use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> > > more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> > > fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
> > >
> > > You don't get one without the other
> > >
> > > Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> > > 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> > > and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real
> time.
> > >
> > > Carbs use a very primitive and extremely complicated failure prone set
> > > of mechanical devices to derive ONE unchangeable (until you stop and
> > > replace jets) fuel map that has to suit the vehicle under a huge set of
> > > variables.
> > >
> > > I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
> > > wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
> > > can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
> > > ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
> > > corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Simon
> > > "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
 

Hi Earle,
Yes, there is no choke on a Dominator:
http://www.carbsonly.com/Graphics/Bi...inatorrace.htm so
that would make to owner smart enough to feather it, like I'm sure you
have done, being too lazy to pull the choke. But other than that it got
the same idle screws, power valve bodies my 850 CFM double pumpers have:
http://www.----------.com/holley2.jpg Level site screw:
http://www.----------.com/holleySite.jpg You may notice I don't like to
f**k with the choke either! If it's cold, tickle it.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Earle Horton wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Don't these things basically run at full load all the time? This means that
> they will have a much more limited range of operating parameters than any
> street use car, and over this limited range more primitive carburetor
> technology will be more appropriate. I don't imagine that they worry too
> much about economy or emissions either. ;^)
>
> Earle
>
> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:44693570.56FA39A1@cox.net...
> > Wouldn't you think the Pro Stock race cars and their millions of
> > dollars of sponsors would use something other than carburetors:
> > http://www.rehermorrison.com/indexStart.htm If you want fifteen to one
> > fuel gas ratio, you'd better send it threw a jet, and not some vibrating
> > solenoid orifice.
> > God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Simon Juncal wrote:
> > >
> > > Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> > > fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> > > and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> > > use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> > > more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> > > fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
> > >
> > > You don't get one without the other
> > >
> > > Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> > > 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> > > and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real
> time.
> > >
> > > Carbs use a very primitive and extremely complicated failure prone set
> > > of mechanical devices to derive ONE unchangeable (until you stop and
> > > replace jets) fuel map that has to suit the vehicle under a huge set of
> > > variables.
> > >
> > > I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
> > > wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
> > > can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
> > > ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
> > > corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Simon
> > > "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
 

Hi Earle,
Yes, there is no choke on a Dominator:
http://www.carbsonly.com/Graphics/Bi...inatorrace.htm so
that would make to owner smart enough to feather it, like I'm sure you
have done, being too lazy to pull the choke. But other than that it got
the same idle screws, power valve bodies my 850 CFM double pumpers have:
http://www.----------.com/holley2.jpg Level site screw:
http://www.----------.com/holleySite.jpg You may notice I don't like to
f**k with the choke either! If it's cold, tickle it.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------

Earle Horton wrote:
>
> Bill,
>
> Don't these things basically run at full load all the time? This means that
> they will have a much more limited range of operating parameters than any
> street use car, and over this limited range more primitive carburetor
> technology will be more appropriate. I don't imagine that they worry too
> much about economy or emissions either. ;^)
>
> Earle
>
> "L.W.(Bill) ------ III" <----------@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:44693570.56FA39A1@cox.net...
> > Wouldn't you think the Pro Stock race cars and their millions of
> > dollars of sponsors would use something other than carburetors:
> > http://www.rehermorrison.com/indexStart.htm If you want fifteen to one
> > fuel gas ratio, you'd better send it threw a jet, and not some vibrating
> > solenoid orifice.
> > God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Simon Juncal wrote:
> > >
> > > Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> > > fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> > > and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> > > use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> > > more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> > > fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
> > >
> > > You don't get one without the other
> > >
> > > Properly set up FI will supply fuel close to the perfect ratio whether
> > > 9000 feet above sea level in 30 degree temps or at 0 feet 100% humidity
> > > and 120 degrees. Based off input from an o2 sensor. On the fly in real
> time.
> > >
> > > Carbs use a very primitive and extremely complicated failure prone set
> > > of mechanical devices to derive ONE unchangeable (until you stop and
> > > replace jets) fuel map that has to suit the vehicle under a huge set of
> > > variables.
> > >
> > > I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
> > > wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
> > > can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
> > > ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
> > > corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.
> > >
> > > --
> > > Simon
> > > "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
 

Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> > Fuel injection is a compromise. It gives lower gas mileage with better
> > emissions
>
> Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
>
> You don't get one without the other

Great in theory, too bad real life proves it otherwise.

Why does a FI system need a fancy new chip to get more power and they
warn about way less gas mileage?

<snip>
> I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
> wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
> can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
> ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
> corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.

LOL, got news for ya....

Here is my last tuning experiment with my carb 258 engine with the
emissions computer gone and 'no' catalytic converter in the exhaust
stream.

On the ASM 2525 test:

I got 589 NOx, 16 ppm HC and 0.11% CO

But but but, my Fuel Injected 4.0 Cherokee with a fresh tune up and a
new O2 sensor got:

HC for the Cherokee was 58 ppm, CO for the Cherokee was 0.56%. NOx
wasn't recorded.

So much for theory, eh....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
 

Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> > Fuel injection is a compromise. It gives lower gas mileage with better
> > emissions
>
> Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
>
> You don't get one without the other

Great in theory, too bad real life proves it otherwise.

Why does a FI system need a fancy new chip to get more power and they
warn about way less gas mileage?

<snip>
> I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
> wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
> can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
> ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
> corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.

LOL, got news for ya....

Here is my last tuning experiment with my carb 258 engine with the
emissions computer gone and 'no' catalytic converter in the exhaust
stream.

On the ASM 2525 test:

I got 589 NOx, 16 ppm HC and 0.11% CO

But but but, my Fuel Injected 4.0 Cherokee with a fresh tune up and a
new O2 sensor got:

HC for the Cherokee was 58 ppm, CO for the Cherokee was 0.56%. NOx
wasn't recorded.

So much for theory, eh....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)

Re: Convert 4.3L Chevy V6 to carb?
 

Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Mike Romain wrote:
> > Fuel injection is a compromise. It gives lower gas mileage with better
> > emissions
>
> Basically you are totally wrong... FI help with emissions by supplying
> fuel in a much more precise manner than carbs, FI can run much leaner
> and stay closer to the ideal air/fuel mixture (ideal for power AND fuel
> use) throughout the range you use a vehicle in. This means you get
> more complete combustion, which means more bang for the same amount of
> fuel, which means more POWER AND better MILEAGE.
>
> You don't get one without the other

Great in theory, too bad real life proves it otherwise.

Why does a FI system need a fancy new chip to get more power and they
warn about way less gas mileage?

<snip>
> I mean there isn't even a debate here, no matter HOW MUCH of a tuning
> wizard you are Mike, you will NEVER tune your carb as well as a computer
> can keep FI tuned... by the time you leave your driveway your air/fuel
> ratio will be less than ideal, a computer will have compensated and
> corrected the ratio 30 times before you left the same driveway.

LOL, got news for ya....

Here is my last tuning experiment with my carb 258 engine with the
emissions computer gone and 'no' catalytic converter in the exhaust
stream.

On the ASM 2525 test:

I got 589 NOx, 16 ppm HC and 0.11% CO

But but but, my Fuel Injected 4.0 Cherokee with a fresh tune up and a
new O2 sensor got:

HC for the Cherokee was 58 ppm, CO for the Cherokee was 0.56%. NOx
wasn't recorded.

So much for theory, eh....

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)